W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-css-testsuite@w3.org > June 2007

RE: meta tag for flags

From: Arron Eicholz <Arron.Eicholz@microsoft.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 14:19:36 -0700
To: fantasai <fantasai.lists@inkedblade.net>
CC: "public-css-testsuite@w3.org" <public-css-testsuite@w3.org>
Message-ID: <66D5CB5D6AB0694592FAF5487C50368B0BA0290E6B@NA-EXMSG-C111.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>

> Fantasai wrote:

> Arron Eicholz wrote:
> > Fantasia wrote:
> >> Arron Eicholz wrote:
> >>> What should be done when we do not have any flags for a particular
> >> test? Do we leave the content
> >>> attribute empty? Or do we remove the meta element all together.
> >> Hm, I haven't defined a <meta> format for the flags yet, as they've
> >> been in the filename so far :)
> >> What are you using?
> >
> > We are currently using <meta name="flags" content="TAGS IDENTIFYING
> >
> > We can change this elements attributes if we feel it needs it but I
> think this suits
> > for what you were trying to achieve and it also unblocks our test
> team.
> Looks good to me. What exactly are the tags you are using? I was
> thinking
> it would be clearer to use tokens rather than letters, e.g. 'ahem'
> rather
> than 'a' for the Ahem font requirement.

We are currently using the letters 'a' for ahem and 'i' for interaction, etc... We are not strongly attached to them though.

I agree I think tokens would be better since they are more self describing. If we go with tokens, there is always the possibility of someone misspelling them (though hopefully the code review would catch that). Also there is the issue of how the tokens should be separated this wasn't an issue with letters. Semi-colon, comma, other? I personally like semi-colons in this case.
Received on Wednesday, 27 June 2007 21:19:47 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 20 January 2023 19:58:12 UTC